Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Christopher Browne
Subject Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date
Msg-id 87zmghzs1t.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?  (Anthony Presley <anthony@resolution.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when armtuk@gmail.com ("Alex Turner") wrote:
> Anyone who has tried x86-64 linux knows what a royal pain in the ass
> it is.   They didn't do anything sensible, like just make the whole
> OS 64 bit, no, they had to split it up, and put 64-bit libs in a new
> directory /lib64.  This means that a great many applications don't
> know to check in there for libs, and don't compile pleasantly, php
> is one among them.  I forget what others, it's been awhile now.  Of
> course if you actualy want to use more than 4gig RAM in a pleasant
> way, it's pretty much essential.  Alex.

That's absolute nonsense.

I have been running the Debian AMD64 port since I can't recall when.
I have experienced NO such issues.

Packages simply install, in most cases.

When I do need to compile things, they *do* compile pleasantly.

I seem to recall hearing there being "significant issues" as to how
Red Hat's distributions of Linux coped with AMD64.  That's not a
problem with Linux, of course...
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
"Imagine a law so stupid that civil obedience becomes an efficient way
to fighting it" --Per Abrahamsen on the DMCA

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?